Page 22 - Demo

a motion. Other times, it is a staff member relying on an AI-powered writing assistant without telling anyone. Without written guardrails, even well-meaning experimentation can introduce risk. The Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (%u201cMRPC%u201d) do not exempt lawyers from liability just because an error was introduced by technology or was inadvertent. If anything, the use of AI makes core duties more pressing. A basic AI policy helps ensure compliance with:%u2022%u0009 Rule 1.1 (Competence):%u00a0 Know and understand the tools you use.%u2022%u0009 Rule 1.4 (Communication):%u00a0 Keep clients informed when something materially affects their representation, like the use of AI.%u2022%u0009 Rule 1.5 (Fees):%u00a0 Ensure billing remains reasonable if AI contributes to the work.%u2022%u0009 Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality):%u00a0 Protect client information, especially when using third-party platforms.%u2022%u0009 Rule 3.3 (Candor):%u00a0Avoid filing inaccurate or fabricated content generated by AI.%u2022%u0009 Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (Supervision):%u00a0Ensure attorneys and staff are acting ethically when using AI.Mississippi Ethics Opinion No. 267 reinforces these obligations. It highlights that attorneys remain responsible for ensuring the security and ethical use of client data when using any third-party vendor or cloud-based platform. That same logic applies to AI: whether you are using an AI-integrated research tool or generative language model, you are expected to supervise its use and protect client confidentiality.What to Include in a Practical AI PolicyYou do not need a formal technology manual. A simple, evolving onepage policy can go a long way. Start by defining the types of tools your firm uses (e.g., public platforms like ChatGPT or Gemini, drafting assistants like Copilot, or AI-enabled legal research products like Westlaw Precision). Clarify that these tools are designed to support, not replace, human legal judgment.The policy should also emphasize attorney oversight. Any AI-generated work product, whether a draft pleading, client communication, or internal research memo, should be reviewed and approved by a licensed attorney before it is filed, sent, or relied on. This satisfies the supervision duties imposed by Rules 5.1 and 5.3.Confidentiality must also be addressed. Lawyers and staff should be cautioned against inputting any client-identifying or privileged information into AI tools unless the platform has been thoroughly vetted for data privacy, retention practices, and security controls. Free or public AI tools frequently retain or reuse user data. Here is a pro tip: many platforms allow you to disable data sharing and model training in account settings. Take the extra two minutes to toggle those off (and if you do not know how, ask the AI to tell you). That default setting alone may raise red flags under Rule 1.6. A policy should also address common AI misuses in practical, real-world terms. It should prohibit reliance on AI to generate legal conclusions or arguments that have not been verified. It should also make clear that attorneys and staff may not submit AI-generated citations without checking them for accuracy and context, nor should they allow AI to prepare any client-facing advice or legal documents without full attorney supervision. Trust me . . . this has already gotten lawyers in trouble. Some firms (like mine) choose to go a step further and reference AI use in their engagement letters, particularly when tools may be used to generate or process content the client receives. A simple sentence like, %u201cOur firm may use supervised AI tools to assist with drafting and document formatting, but all work is reviewed by a licensed attorney,%u201d can go a long way toward setting expectations and preserving trust.Once you have written your policy, take time to roll it out intentionally. Share it during a team meeting or through an internal memo. Encourage questions. Make sure your team knows what tools are in play, what rules apply, and who they should go to with concerns. Your policy only works if it is applied consistently.It also helps to designate someone (e.g., a partner, administrator, or committee lead) to own the process of reviewing and updating the policy over time. AI tools will continue to evolve, and your expectations should evolve with them.It is worth underscoring what a policy%u00a0 isn%u2019t. It is not a shield against mistakes, and it will not prevent ethical breaches on its own. What it does do is show that your firm is thinking ahead, setting expectations, and building a culture of responsible use. On the flip side, the policy should also highlight safe and effective ways to use AI. For example, AI tools can be used to generate rough outlines, reformat lengthy documents, create timelines from case facts, summarize lengthy transcripts or deposition excerpts, and even brainstorm arguments or spot-check reasoning. These uses carry relatively low risk, save time, and still require lawyer involvement, making them ideal for a responsible starting point.When framed thoughtfully, an AI use policy becomes a tool for protecting professional judgment, reinforcing team standards, and supporting innovation without sacrificing ethics or quality.Final Thoughts: A Policy Is Just the First StepYour first AI policy won%u2019t be perfect. It does not have to be. But putting The policy should also emphasize attorney oversight. Any AI-generated work product, whether a draft pleading, client communication, or internal research memo, should be reviewed and approved by a licensed attorney before it is filed, sent, or relied on.22 WINTER 2026